A challenging book. Worth reading, but challenging on multiple levels. For one, it's not the easiest read. You definitely want to follow the details and argument, and do not get confused about locution vs. illocution whatever you do.

But more importantly, the content is challenging. For those of us with a particular view of how scripture works and where its authority lies, you really have to wrestle with the implications. I come from a background that more-or-less assumes that Isaiah sat down one day and wrote sixty-some chapters (with near dictation from the Holy Spirit), signed his name at the end, and sent it off to the publisher, without any errors. There had been cracks in that model showing for a while, and this book systematically dismantles it.

A few major insights: There's a whole lot less writing going on, and a whole lot more speaking. There's also some amount of editing and variation. Authority is tied to the aut-, uh, excuse me, *speaker*'s intent and not to the words or style themselves. And the style of the words needs to be interpreted from the way that style worked in that time, not the way it works in ours.

And let's be clear that this is not an excuse to throw out scripture. The authors take a high view of scripture. They are not heretics. Scripture remains God's communication to humanity and is without error in what it affirms. They just use a whole lot more nuance than normal in saying that, including the importance of figuring out what is or is not being affirmed (the intention or "illocution") and observing that generating scripture was a much longer process than is often assumed (i.e. years of oral repetition, transcription, editing, and not just Samuel writing a book one afternoon).

It was badly needed, but uncomfortable. But at the end of the day, I want my view of scripture be based on reality rather than what is most comfortable. I'm not sure exactly what the implications will be over the long term, but I very much appreciate the adjustments coming from authors who still hold to the value of scripture even with the changes. ( )

A very, very challenging book, not only for its primary intended readers (conservative Christians) but also for any Liberals who may be humble enough to learn from fundamentalists.

I mentioned fundamentalism in the original sense: this is primary a book for fundamentalists adhering to Biblical inerrancy but wanting a better definition of it, and understanding of the Bible, based on Scripture’s original cultural context, including the role of orality in the genesis of texts and in their transmission. Incidentally, the author’s argument ends up supporting a Reformed emphasis they did not even mention: that the faithful preaching of the Word of God is itself God’s word for man.

I wish I could give it 4,75 stars, or five stars for contents and four for presentation. The format of a series of propositions instead of chapters seems didatic but odd, and the initial chapters (I really will not call them ‘propositions’) are presented against the Evangelical grain, even if they actually intend to serve Evangelicals, and thus may loose quite a few readers who will loose heart before they reach the end of the book, even if it is a much needed reading for everyone wanting to improve beyond the very basic level of exegesis as presented, for instance, in Fee & Stuart’s _Reading the Bible for all its Worth_.

Essentially, the authors propose we differentiate between roles or aspects of the same inspired Scriptural texts: locution (words used by the authors, in their original cultural context); illocution (meaning or communication intended, and only fully exposed by understanding locution in its cultural context); and perlocution (response hoped in readers or hearers). But the implications are multifold, and much beyond the scope of such a puny review as mine.

Essential. ( )